Does a judge have to say the following in order to give an oral judgment?

THE COURT: (Oral) Until recently, it’s been the accepted wisdom, at least in this province, that a judge did not have to say the following in order to have a legal right to do it. In other words, even if the judge didn’t say anything, when the judge gave an oral judgment, upon being presented with a draft transcript of the judgment, he or she had the right to change, alter, add to, or delete from the reasons as the judge saw fit, save and except that the result had to remain the same. Recently, at least in Ontario, there appears to be a change. What goes on in Ontario is not binding on any judge in this province; however, it’s of persuasive effect. The case I’m referring to is Regina v. Hanaman (2001), O.J. No. 839, (March 12, 2001). The short point is, at least according to that bit of case law, the presumption ought to be reversed. At paragraph 160 of the judgment, the judge there, Mr. Justice Hill of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, states, in effect, that absent the judge making the kind of remark I’m about to make, he does not have the right to change, alter, add to, or delete from the reasons as he sees fit. Therefore, in order to make sure of what used to be taken as obvious, I state for the record that I do reserve the right to change, alter, add to, or delete from these reasons upon being presented with a draft transcript. The result will remain the same.